George v. Hatcher, 45A04-8706-CV-177
| Decision Date | 22 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45A04-8706-CV-177,45A04-8706-CV-177 |
| Citation | 527 N.E.2d 199 |
| Parties | Dianne GEORGE, Millie Young and Velma Gore, Individually and in their joint capacities, Appellants, v. Richard Gordon HATCHER, Individually and in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Gary, The City of Gary, a Municipal Corp., Department of Redevelopment of Gary, a Municipal Corp., Maurice E. Baptiste, Individually and in his capacity as Vice President of the Gary Redevelopment Commission, Dalia Olivarez, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of Gary Redevelopment Commission, Emma D. Robinson, Individually and as a member of the Gary Redevelopment Commission, Philip Rutledge, Individually and as a member of Gary Redevelopment Commission, Richard Rockwell, Individually and as Executive Secretary of the Gary Redevelopment Commission and Clifford E. Minton, as a member of the Gary Redevelopment Commission, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John M. Kopack, Gilyan Hanson & Kopack, Merrillville, for appellants.
Julian B. Allen, Gary, for appellees.
Diane George, Millie Young, and Velma Gore (Employees) claimed their civil rights were violated under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 when they lost their jobs with the Department of Redevelopment of the City of Gary under an employee reorganization plan that phased out their positions. However, the trial court granted summary judgment against them and in favor of Richard Gordon Hatcher, Mayor of the City of Gary, the City of Gary, and the Department of Redevelopment and the individual members thereof (Commission) based on their failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Indiana Tort Claim Act, IND.CODE Sec. 34-4-16.5-1 et. seq. (ITCA). We reverse, basing our opinion on the very recent United States Supreme Court case of Felder v. Casey (1988), --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123, which held that notice provisions of the state law are not applicable in Sec. 1983 proceedings.
The Employees were terminated from their jobs with the Department of Redevelopment on April 29, 1984 after the Commission approved an employee reorganization plan that phased out their positions. On June 6, 1984 the Employees brought an action against the Commission under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging their civil rights had been violated when they were discharged. The Commission filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the Employees' noncompliance with the notice provisions of the ITCA barred their claim. The Employees argued that although they had not complied strictly with the requirements, they had substantially complied and the Commission had received actual notice. After a hearing on the motion on January 12, 1987, the trial court, relying on Indiana Dept. of Public Welfare v. Clark (1985), Ind.App., 478 N.E.2d 699, granted the Commission's motion on the basis that the Employees had failed to satisfy the notice requirements. Although Clark and Werblo v. Hamilton Heights School Corp. (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 185, would previously have been dispositive in barring the Employees' claim, these cases have been overruled to the extent that they held that the ITCA notice-of-claim provision applies to Sec. 1983 suits in our courts. Felder, supra.
The facts in Felder reveal that nine months after Felder was allegedly beaten by Milwaukee police officers who arrested him on a disorderly conduct charge that was later dropped, he brought a state-court action against the City and certain police officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meury v. Eagle-Union Community School Corp.
...notice not applicable to a teacher's civil rights claim against school district which arose from her discharge); George v. Hatcher, 527 N.E.2d 199 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (the supremacy clause preempts ITCA tort claim rules in a § 1983 action). Nevertheless, even when inapplicable to federal clai......
-
HCA Health Services of Indiana, Inc. v. Gregory
...jurisdiction on state courts does not mandate the application of the procedural mandates of the State Act. See George v. Hatcher (1988), Ind.App., 527 N.E.2d 199, 201 (citing Felder v. Casey (1988), 487 U.S. 131, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123) (notice provisions of state law not applicabl......
-
Werblo v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Heights School Corp., 29S02-8905-CV-371
...----, 108 S.Ct. at 2308, 101 L.Ed.2d at 139-40. The holding in Felder is dispositive of the issue in the instant case. George v. Hatcher (1988), Ind.App., 527 N.E.2d 199. Accordingly, the trial court is reversed on this This cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment consist......
-
Rudnick v. Northern Ind. Com. Transp. Dist., 64A03-0712-CV-559.
...must be fulfilled before filing suit in a state court.") (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds as stated in George v. Hatcher, 527 N.E.2d 199 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). 2. Rudnick believes the District did not make the forms available because it had not yet realized it was entitled to not......